Social Housing Areas - Dublin Councils

Spanish Eyes

InTheShadows wrote: »

Unemployed persons in Ireland is circa 108,000 so iv'e no idea where you are getting those figures.

There are people who don't work, not because they will not work, but they may not be capable of it, whether through illness, disability or whatever. So the figures for those who don't work don't necessarily apply to those purely on the JSA/JSB.

The Student

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

I think the world isn't black or white but really shades of gray. And people who think you can solve complex issues with simple answers are just simple themselves.

Your last sentence speaks volumes about your ability to have a reasoned discussion.

Graham

Mod Note

Cuddlesworth/The Student, quit the personal digs please.

InTheShadows

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

There are people who don't work, not because they will not work, but they may not be capable of it, whether through illness, disability or whatever. So the figures for those who don't work don't necessarily apply to those purely on the JSA/JSB.

So we've another almost a million who are on that?

The Student

<SNIP>

Spanish Eyes

InTheShadows wrote: »

So we've another almost a million who are on that?

I don't know how the figures are calculated, maybe elderly people in need of disabled access/adapted homes, same for younger disabled, one person or indeed two as a couple could have a family, carers, the Traveller Community, and immigrants newly arrived or here already, and so on.

Would be interesting to see a breakdown of the figures for those in need of social housing, but no doubt there will be some GDPR get out clause for revealing it.

thegetawaycar

sportsfan90 wrote: »

While I agree with a lot of your post, I'm curious why you think state employees should get prioritised?

I think the state employees that provide a much needed service to the public should be prioritised because those jobs may not be the best paying jobs in the state and many would be priced out of the area they need to be in for work. It would also mean wage costs in the public sector could remain relatively low as subsidised housing in Dublin would be a massive benefit. Outside of Dublin I wouldn't see it as a necessity.

sportsfan90

thegetawaycar wrote: »

I think the state employees that provide a much needed service to the public should be prioritised because those jobs may not be the best paying jobs in the state and many would be priced out of the area they need to be in for work. It would also mean wage costs in the public sector could remain relatively low as subsidised housing in Dublin would be a massive benefit. Outside of Dublin I wouldn't see it as a necessity.

I of course agree they provide much needed service to the public and have every right to apply for housing same as everyone else. But I can't see why they should be given priority over the rest of the population. Is the work non-public servants do not important and benefit society too? Btw I know that's not what you're saying but by prioritising public sector over a similar income family in the private sector that's in essence the message that would be given out.

Btw I think you're spot on with the rest of your post that I originally replied to.

Wheeliebin30

Everyone here has great ideas but how can you expect the government to implement them when everyone constantly goes on about the homeless crisis and gives out about the government everyday here.

No one will ever have the balls to implement these policies.

Fan of Netflix

Will the new local election onto Dublin councils change much in regard social housing in the next 5 years? In fairness I think councillors have extremely limited powers now.

Spanish Eyes

thegetawaycar wrote: »

I think the state employees that provide a much needed service to the public should be prioritised because those jobs may not be the best paying jobs in the state and many would be priced out of the area they need to be in for work. It would also mean wage costs in the public sector could remain relatively low as subsidised housing in Dublin would be a massive benefit. Outside of Dublin I wouldn't see it as a necessity.

On that note, I think, if I remember correctly that certain employees in London are given a "London Weighting" giving them a bit more than those who work outside the metropolis.

I suppose it hasn't been considered here because everyone might flock to Dublin, and negate the decentralisation project, which to be fair has been quite successful AFAIS.

Should be more of it, decentralisation I mean, but that can only apply to Public Sector. There is no way the Googles etc. are going to move their employees out of Dublin now. Rents may be astronomical, but someone is paying them.

voluntary

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

No one will ever have the balls to implement these policies.

But which policies? The whole problem is that there's no consensus. Ask 10 people and you'll get 10 different solutions.

voluntary

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

There is no way the Googles etc. are going to move their employees out of Dublin now. Rents may be astronomical, but someone is paying them.

Population of Ireland
1. Dublin: 1.1M
2. Cork: 208k
3. Limerick 94k
4. Galway 74k

This is your answer. The ones like Google aren't likely to setup large offices in cities smaller than ~0.5M.
They may run support regional offices from small cities though.

Bictables

voluntary wrote: »

Population of Ireland
1. Dublin: 1.1M
2. Cork: 208k
3. Limerick 94k
4. Galway 74k

This is your answer. The ones like Google aren't likely to setup large offices in cities smaller than ~0.5M.
They may run support regional offices from small cities though.

In the interest of pedantry, Galway City's population is 80k.

Zenify

Donald Trump wrote: »

And what is your point? Person in area A just paid 150 for house. Area in house B just paid 50. Council now have a decision to make. Allocate next batch to Area A in which case prices move to 140 and 60 respectively or to allocate to area B in which case prices move to 160 and 40.


Your preference would seem to apply to the second option. Why does the (probably less well off) person in in area B have to suffer the loss? Maybe you, or one of yours, will be that person in area B some day. Might be the next generation or the following one, but eventually it will happen. You reap what you sow.

I was only saying that it's not fair for social housing to be built beside people who paid a lot to live in an area that doesnt have social housing.

I also agree it is not fair to build social housing beside people who have had some built beside them already.

I dont have a solution to the problem. Just wanted to make the point.

Donald Trump

Zenify wrote: »

I was only saying that it's not fair for social housing to be built beside people who paid a lot to live in an area that doesnt have social housing.

I also agree it is not fair to build social housing beside people who have had some built beside them already.

I dont have a solution to the problem. Just wanted to make the point.

I'm against providing a lot of social housing in geographically beneficial areas. I understand that it can be a cycle in terms of amenities etc. but that cycle could be easily fixed.



Earlier on someone mentioned Balbriggan vs Malahide. Malahide is of course closer to the city but both are on the train line. It's not the same difference as a person commuting to Dublin city centre to Drogheda and sitting in their car in traffic on the way home watching the pyjama brigade finally roll out of bed to head to the local chipper for a late lunch.
If you put facilities into Balbriggan it could be as nice to live there as Malahide if the social housing were on equal footing. I think that they social housing should come with additional benefits to compensate the residents (new and existing). Of course, there are people who will wreck any place no matter what is there. But lets be honest, there will be 60 year olds who were born and grew up in Balbriggan whose house value is decimated relative to where it could have been had it not been a veritable social housing dumping ground

seasidedub

Donald Trump wrote: »

I'm against providing a lot of social housing in geographically beneficial areas. I understand that it can be a cycle in terms of amenities etc. but that cycle could be easily fixed.



Earlier on someone mentioned Balbriggan vs Malahide. Malahide is of course closer to the city but both are on the train line. It's not the same difference as a person commuting to Dublin city centre to Drogheda and sitting in their car in traffic on the way home watching the pyjama brigade finally roll out of bed to head to the local chipper for a late lunch.
If you put facilities into Balbriggan it could be as nice to live there as Malahide if the social housing were on equal footing. I think that they social housing should come with additional benefits to compensate the residents (new and existing). Of course, there are people who will wreck any place no matter what is there. But lets be honest, there will be 60 year olds who were born and grew up in Balbriggan whose house value is decimated relative to where it could have been had it not been a veritable social housing dumping ground

Donabate heading for Balbrigganisation any day now. 2000 social houses going in. Really unfair to do that to a lovely quiet village. It will decimate it. Come on, seriously - if you bought for 450k there and are potentially watching the value of your house plummet you'd be sick.

Jaster Rogue

seasidedub wrote: »

Donabate heading for Balbrigganisation any day now. 2000 social houses going in. Really unfair to do that to a lovely quiet village. It will decimate it. Come on, seriously - if you bought for 450k there and are potentially watching the value of your house plummet you'd be sick.

The value of their home will be the least of their worries, if a repeat of Balbriggan happens there.

Ush1

Bictables wrote: »

In the interest of pedantry, Galway City's population is 80k.

Similar size to Tallaght so.

voluntary

Zenify wrote: »

I was only saying that it's not fair for social housing to be built beside people who paid a lot to live in an area that doesnt have social housing.

I also agree it is not fair to build social housing beside people who have had some built beside them already.

I dont have a solution to the problem. Just wanted to make the point.

Social housing isn't a problem. The problem is what it sometimes implies - criminals and anti social behavior.

What if we have reputation based social housing? It's apparent, some social houses are more desirable than others. Some are in better areas, some are newer, energy efficient etc.

If we have a reputation based system in place, where recipients get scoring points from neighbors around then every so often they would be either downgraded or upgraded?

Reputation score could be combined based on many sources: garda report, schools, neighbors.

Imagine a person/family gets assignment in a good area / good house. They'd try they best to stay in the area, otherwise - OUT. Neighbors would also try to give good score to good people, so they are not being replace with some dodgy ones. Nobody in good areas would complain any more that social houses lower the standards.

Zenify

voluntary wrote: »

Social housing isn't a problem. The problem is what it sometimes implies - criminals and anti social behavior.

What if we have reputation based social housing? It's apparent, some social houses are more desirable than others. Some are in better areas, some are newer, energy efficient etc.

If we have a reputation based system in place, where recipients get scoring points from neighbors around then every so often they would be either downgraded or upgraded?

Reputation score could be combined based on many sources: garda report, schools, neighbors.

Imagine a person/family gets assignment in a good area / good house. They'd try they best to stay in the area, otherwise - OUT. Neighbors would also try to give good score to good people, so they are not being replace with some dodgy ones. Nobody in good areas would complain any more that social houses lower the standards.

The people on social housing would be making their neighbours freshly baked scones and coffee every morning.

Reminds me of the first episode of Black Mirror

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosedive_(Black_Mirror)

voluntary

Zenify wrote: »

The people on social housing would be making their neighbours freshly baked scones and coffee every morning.

Reminds me of the first episode of Black Mirror

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosedive_(Black_Mirror)

It would be controversial. At the other hand, you get a house for free so behave yourselve or move to a worse house, simple.

Reputation would need to be limited to social housing and anti discrimination legislation put in place, so it cannot be used for anything else than for social housing allocation (so reputation score would be added to a bucket together race, color, religion, sex etc)

Donald Trump

seasidedub wrote: »

Donabate heading for Balbrigganisation any day now. 2000 social houses going in. Really unfair to do that to a lovely quiet village. It will decimate it. Come on, seriously - if you bought for 450k there and are potentially watching the value of your house plummet you'd be sick.

And? Why do you think that the person who bought for 450k in Donabate deserves to be protected more than the person who bought for 200k in Balbriggan who doesn't want to see their house go to 150k?


Solution is to spread them out properly from the start so that the "pain" is equal. What happened was that that wasn't done before but they shouldn't be allowed to still get away with that in perpetuity just because it was started like that. That 450k house might not have made 450k is 200 of those social houses had already been built there!

Wheeliebin30

Donald Trump wrote: »

And? Why do you think that the person who bought for 450k in Donabate deserves to be protected more than the person who bought for 200k in Balbriggan who doesn't want to see their house go to 150k?


Solution is to spread them out properly from the start so that the "pain" is equal. What happened was that that wasn't done before but they shouldn't be allowed to still get away with that in perpetuity just because it was started like that. That 450k house might not have made 450k is 200 of those social houses had already been built there!

I think it’s more the point if you pay more you should have an advantage at lest for the start to live in peace away from pond life.


Pretty simple.

Donald Trump

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

I think it’s more the point if you pay more you should have an advantage at lest for the start to live in peace away from pond life.


Pretty simple.

An even simpler point is that it's all relative. That person in 450k house is effectively pond life from the perspective of the person in the 800k house up the road in Malahide


The 450k loser should quit their moaning and suck it up like the plebs they are so!


If they want to stay away from other pond life they should have made better life choices and bought a house in Malahide!

IAmTheReign

InTheShadows wrote: »

Of course the vast majority in social housing are normal decent people just trying to live their lives but the problem i have is this blanket preception that everybody in a council estate is a toerag or scrounger.

I live in a mixed social and affordable estate and i was lucky enough to be in a position to buy our house outright some years ago and can genuinely say 80-85% of my neighbours work and are just like you or me.

That said there is a bad bad element of scummers who ruin it for everyone else and unfortunately the council will not evict them. Until the council/justice system take responsibility and punish these people it will continue unchecked.

What would be the use in the council evicting them though? They're still responsible for rehoming them somewhere else.

Other than leaving them where they are the only thing you can do with problem tenants in social housing is either put them on the street or move them to dedicated accommodation for problem tenants, both of which are just never going to happen.

IAmTheReign

voluntary wrote: »

Social housing isn't a problem. The problem is what it sometimes implies - criminals and anti social behavior.

What if we have reputation based social housing? It's apparent, some social houses are more desirable than others. Some are in better areas, some are newer, energy efficient etc.

If we have a reputation based system in place, where recipients get scoring points from neighbors around then every so often they would be either downgraded or upgraded?

Reputation score could be combined based on many sources: garda report, schools, neighbors.

Imagine a person/family gets assignment in a good area / good house. They'd try they best to stay in the area, otherwise - OUT. Neighbors would also try to give good score to good people, so they are not being replace with some dodgy ones. Nobody in good areas would complain any more that social houses lower the standards.

This is a wind up surely? Keep the neighbours happy or you'll be whisked off to live in a ghetto with the other undesirables?

Not to mention that this would be widely open to abuse. Bribes and threats of violence against your family I would imagine are far better motivators than being polite.

seasidedub

Donald Trump wrote: »

seasidedub wrote: »

Donabate heading for Balbrigganisation any day now. 2000 social houses going in. Really unfair to do that to a lovely quiet village. It will decimate it. Come on, seriously - if you bought for 450k there and are potentially watching the value of your house plummet you'd be sick.

And? Why do you think that the person who bought for 450k in Donabate deserves to be protected more than the person who bought for 200k in Balbriggan who doesn't want to see their house go to 150k?


Solution is to spread them out properly from the start so that the "pain" is equal. What happened was that that wasn't done before but they shouldn't be allowed to still get away with that in perpetuity just because it was started like that. That 450k house might not have made 450k is 200 of those social houses had already been built there!

I live in the real world and the reality is that if you bought for say 500k you realistically expect to live near/with people who are similar in terms of values etc. If 2000 people on social welfare are suddenly dumped beside you, they don't have the same values, in general. I live in a "nice area" - people don't litter and pick up after their dog. I work in a mainly council housing area, full of litter and dog excrement.

If there is now no right to expect to live in an area where the others around you have paid the same price and worked hard to do so, where's the incentive to work? Why pay 500k if you can get the same house for life for a tiny rent you pay out of social welfare anyway? It's nonsensical. As to employed people on low wages - affordable housing should be part of the picture, but again - if you can get a 500k house for 250 because you are lower paid, where's the incentive to educate yourself or your children or to improve yourself? You get "the same" anyway.

People are not the same, they just are not. I lived in Helsinki and all those with better jobs fell over themselves to pay 900k for small city centre apartments or houses in Westend (think Malahide) and away from the blocks of East Helsinki. People aspire to live with what they consider their own social peers and all the leftie crap of "spreading and integrating" won't change that. What we will see is huge competition for homes in established areas with no social housing.

Wheeliebin30

seasidedub wrote: »

I live in the real world and the reality is that if you bought for say 500k you realistically expect to live near/with people who are similar in terms of values etc. If 2000 people on social welfare are suddenly dumped beside you, they don't have the same values, in general. I live in a "nice area" - people don't litter and pick up after their dog. I work in a mainly council housing area, full of litter and dog excrement.

If there is now no right to expect to live in an area where the others around you have paid the same price and worked hard to do so, where's the incentive to work? Why pay 500k if you can get the same house for life for a tiny rent you pay out of social welfare anyway? It's nonsensical. As to employed people on low wages - affordable housing should be part of the picture, but again - if you can get a 500k house for 250 because you are lower paid, where's the incentive to educate yourself or your children or to improve yourself? You get "the same" anyway.

People are not the same, they just are not. I lived in Helsinki and all those with better jobs fell over themselves to pay 900k for small city centre apartments or houses in Westend (think Malahide) and away from the blocks of East Helsinki. People aspire to live with what they consider their own social peers and all the leftie crap of "spreading and integrating" won't change that. What we will see is huge competition for homes in established areas with no social housing.

Communism at its finest.

fret_wimp2

seasidedub wrote: »

People are not the same, they just are not.

Very true, but from my experience, a lot of people with 600k+ houses work in the same jobs, and get paid the same or similar salaries to those in 350k houses.

In a lot of cases the people in the 600k+ houses either purchased 15 years previously, got an early inheritance to help buy in a better area or inherited a house outright.

Same people, same drive, same work ethic, same social conscience, but different life circumstances. They dont work any harder than the folks who bought later or just had a helping hand.

So yea, to a point people are not the same, but a huge portion of the housing market, particularly in dublin is not based alone on people, its based on timing, luck and other factors uncontrollable by anyone.

So in this respect, the person in a 350k house should have the same right to live in a decent area as the person in a more expensive house.